From Bokaro: By the Pen of National Head and Legal Advisor Advocate Rajesh Kumar
According to sources, the government spends approximately 10 lakh rupees monthly on this institution, yet its contribution and effectiveness are virtually negligible. In such a scenario, is the existence of the Permanent Lok Adalat justified, or should it be shut down? This question is not only pertinent for the government but also for every citizen whose hard-earned money is being spent on this system.The Purpose and Reality of the Permanent Lok AdalatUnder Section 22-B of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Permanent Lok Adalats were established to resolve disputes related to public utility services such as electricity, water, transportation, postal services, and insurance through conciliation and settlement. This system was designed specifically to address disputes before they escalate into full-fledged lawsuits. In Bokaro, the Permanent Lok Adalat operates under the chairmanship of a retired judge, supported by two other members.
However, sources indicate that this court neither resolves cases nor facilitates any dispute settlements.The question arises: when regular courts are already handling their workload, what is the need for a Permanent Lok Adalat? If not a single case is being disposed of, this institution can only be described as a misuse of public funds.Zero Achievements, Rising CostsAccording to sources, the staff at Bokaro’s Permanent Lok Adalat merely show up to fulfill formalities. No hearings take place, no efforts are made toward conciliation, and no disputes are resolved. If the court’s entire tenure is examined, it reportedly cannot claim to have settled even a single case. Despite this, the government continues to spend 10 lakh rupees every month, funds that ultimately come from the public’s hard-earned money.
This situation is not only disappointing but also raises a critical question: is there any justification for maintaining such a system? The Permanent Lok Adalat, which promised swift justice to the public, has become nothing more than an expensive structure in Bokaro.Temporary Lok Adalat vs. Permanent Lok AdalatTemporary Lok Adalats, such as the National Lok Adalat organized periodically, have delivered effective results in many cases. For instance, in 2024, the National Lok Adalat in Dumka disposed of 10,560 cases and recovered over 23 crore rupees. Similarly, in Chhattisgarh, the 2024 National Lok Adalat resolved over 9 lakh cases.
These figures demonstrate that temporary Lok Adalats are proving useful for the public. In stark contrast, the situation of Bokaro’s Permanent Lok Adalat is disheartening. If regular courts and temporary Lok Adalats can effectively resolve disputes, what is the purpose of a Permanent Lok Adalat, especially when it shows no tangible contribution?Should the Permanent Lok Adalat Be Shut Down?Given the state of Bokaro’s Permanent Lok Adalat, it is natural to ask whether it should be closed. Spending public money on a system that neither delivers justice nor resolves disputes cannot be justified from any perspective.
The Permanent Lok Adalat was meant to provide affordable and swift justice, but in Bokaro, it has strayed far from its original purpose.Options and Suggestions for the GovernmentEnsure Transparency and Accountability: If the Permanent Lok Adalat is to be retained, its operations must be made transparent. Monthly case disposal records should be made public so that citizens know how their money is being utilized.Training and Awareness: The lack of effectiveness may partly stem from low public awareness about the Permanent Lok Adalat. Awareness campaigns can educate people about its benefits and procedures. Additionally, the court’s members should receive training to work more effectively.Focus on Temporary Lok Adalats: Temporary Lok Adalats have shown better results in many states.
The government should consider organizing temporary Lok Adalats at regular intervals in Bokaro, which are proving more effective.Consider Closure: If the Permanent Lok Adalat’s performance remains consistently negligible, the government should seriously consider shutting it down. Instead of wasting resources, these funds could be redirected to other judicial or social welfare initiatives.ConclusionThe Permanent Lok Adalat in Bokaro has become a question mark. If it is indeed failing to dispose of even a single case, its relevance is highly questionable. The government must urgently address this issue and either make the system more effective or close it to ensure better utilization of resources. Public money should be spent for public welfare, not on a system that exists only on paper. It is up to the government to reflect on this issue and provide answers to the public.
